- January 14, 2015 Motion and Motion for the Recusals of Oneida Appeals Commission Trial Body Hearing Officers Jean Webster, Kathy Hughes & Chris J. Cornelius for Their Violations of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Civil Rights as Determined by the Oneida Appeals Commission Appellate Body, Docket No’s. 14-TC-173/14-AP-012, Cornelius, Debraska, Dodge, Graham & Orie v. Oneida Business Committee, Oneida Election Board & Oneida Law Office
Why would anyone trust those who have incompetently and/or intentionally violated Oneida Tribe members’ right to due process to not do this all over again to those who are defending voting rights?
How the Oneida Appeals Commission’s Trial Body treats those who seek to defend General Tribal Council’s Voting & Civil Rights
Among the issues to be considered are violations of the Election Law that are documented to have taken place during the Special Election of the Oneida Judiciary, such as those described by Oneida Estate Claim Assistant Julie Denny in the following letter to BC Chair Tina Danforth, BC Vice-Chair Melinda J. Danforth, BC Secretary Lisa Summers, Election Board Chair Michelle Doxtator and Election Board Vice-Chair Melinda K. Danforth. The full text is available at this link:
Julie Denny’s claims that the electronic ballot counting machine at the Oneida reservation polling site wasn’t functioning when polls opened at 7 a.m. as required by the Oneida Election Law and its use instead delayed until after 8 a.m. in violation of the Election Law [2.9-3(a)] is buttressed by eyewitness accounts of Tribe members who’ve informed Oneida Eye that they were unlawfully told to place their ballots in an unsecured, unmarked file folder on top of the nonworking ballot machine rather than being allowed to place their ballots in a locked box clearly marked “Ballot Box” as required by the Election Law [2.9-9], and that no Election Official nor Oneida Police Department officer was present in the room with the unmakred, unsecured file folder containing ballots as required by the Election Law [2.9-4].
The Oneida Election Law states at 2.8 Registration of Voters, Section D. Qualifications/Verification of Voter Eligibility, 2.8-7:
Any voter denied eligibility shall be allowed to vote, provided that the ballot shall be placed in an envelope, initialed by two (2) Election Officials, sealed and numbered.
The Oneida Election Law also states at 2.9 Election Process, Section D. Rejected Ballots, 2.9-13:
Rejected Ballots are to be placed in a specially marked container and sealed.
Then why weren’t ballots cast during 7 a.m. to at least 8 a.m. either placed in sealed envelopes and initialed by Election Officials or placed in the sealed container used for rejected ballots and were instead left in an unmarked, unsecured file folder in a room without any Election Officials or Oneida Police Dept. officer guarding the ballots?
Given that the Plaintiffs’ request for a Declaratory Ruling to include the Milwaukee-area Southeast Oneida Tribal Services (SEOTS) polling site in all Tribal elections was originally filed on August 20, 2014, and a GTC Petition asking for the same filed on August 28, 2014, why hasn’t the Oneida Business Committee simply acknowledged that they plan to quickly bring an amendment for General Tribal Council to adopt to include a SEOTS polling site in all future elections in keeping with the Oneida Constitution’s intent to “promote the widest possible participation of Oneida people in their governance” as stated in BC Resolution 03-13-02-O?
At any rate, it is obvious that Hearing Officers who have alreadly violated Tribe members’ civil rights of due process should not be allowed to adjudicate a case in which they’ve previously demonstrated their incompentence and/or their intention to try to defend the Oneida Business Committee, Oneida Election Board and Oneida Law Office against claims of illegally conducted elections. Nor should they be allowed to decide whether those entities should be able to violate Tribe members’ voting rights by excluding the SEOTS polling site on arbitrary and capricious grounds.
Likewise, it would be wholly inappropriate for these matters to go before the Oneida Tribal Judiciary given that they call into question the very validity of the Special Election of the Judiciary, plus the undenaible fact that the Chief Justices of the Judiciary’s Trial Court and Appellate Court have already demonstrated bias in favor of the Respondents by being dishonest about the reality that the Oneida Business Committee is to blame for the delays of the Judiciary election as admitted by OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth:
Therefore, the Plaintiffs-Appellants are requesting that these matters go before the Wisconsin Tribal Judges Association rather than be heard as scheduled at 9 a.m. on Friday, January 16, 2015, by a court that obviously lacks competent jurisdiction.
See also:
